HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals today affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of Buc-ee’s in a slip and fall lawsuit brought against the company.
The opinion stems from a lawsuit brought by Laura Michele Maddock against A&C Cast, doing business as Facility Services Unlimited, and Buc-ee’s.
According to the First Court’s opinion, in 2014 Buc-ee’s requested that Facility Services remove the paint from all wheelchair ramps at its stores and replace the paint with a specific color of stain. Facility Services performed the work using an ADA-compliant stain in the color selected by Buc-ee’s and reapplied the stain periodically, including at Buc-ee’s Cypress store in May 2018.
On Oct. 15, 2018, Maddock stopped at Buc-ee’s Cypress store. She walked up the ADA handicap ramp at the entrance. As she exited the store, Maddock alleges she slipped and fell on the handicap ramp, injuring her knee. She claims when she exited the store it was drizzling lightly outside. Maddock was taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital.
Three days later, Maddock’s husband went to the store to inform the manager about Maddock’s injuries and that she was considering pursuing a claim against Buc-ee’s. The manager referred Maddock’s husband to Buc-ee’s Claims Department. That same day, at Buc-ee’s direction, Facility Services power washed the ADA ramp at the Cypress Store and removed the paint stain, the opinion states.
Maddock sued Buc-ee’s and Facility Services for premises liability, alleging that Buc-ee’s and Facility Services created a condition on the premises that posed an unreasonably dangerous condition to visitors, knew or should have known that the substance used on the ADA ramp was unsafe and created an unreasonably dangerous condition, and failed to remedy or correct the condition and failed to warn patrons, including Maddock, of the condition.
Court records show the companies filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, leading Maddock to appeal.
On appeal, Maddock argued that the trial court: erred in granting summary judgment and in denying her request for a spoliation presumption; erred because she presented sufficient evidence raising a fact issue over whether Buc-ee’s and Facility Services had constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition; and abused its discretion by refusing to grant a spoliation presumption in her favor.
As to Facility Services, the First Court concluded there is no evidence that the company knew or should have known that the stain it applied to the ramp at the Cypress store created an unreasonably dangerous condition, holding that the trial court properly granted Facility Services’ no-evidence motion for summary judgment.
For Buc-ee’s, justices concluded Maddock failed to bring forth evidence that it knew or should have known of an unreasonably dangerous condition on its premises, also holding that the trial court properly granted Buc-ee’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment.
Case No. 01-21-00512-CV